Austin Attorneys Obtain Summary Judgments on Claims in Construction Case

Notice Under Discovery Rule and Third-Party Beneficiary to the Contract

The case involved the design and construction of a medical office building. The Plaintiffs, who were the developer and general contractor for the property, purchased the property while construction was ongoing. During construction, one of the Plaintiffs’ representatives noticed issues with the framing. They hired an expert, who issued a report several months later that there were allegedly design defects.

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit within 2 years after that report came out; however, it was more than 2 years after the observations on site. Defendants, who were architect and structural engineer, argued that the observations on site constituted notice under the discovery rule, such that it triggered the running of the statute of limitations for the negligence claim.

The second claim, which was filed on the eve of the hearing for the first summary judgment motion, was for breach of contract with the subsequent purchaser, wherein it argued that it was a third-party beneficiary to the contract between the architect and engineer. As a result, he contended that he could sue the engineer for breach of contract.

In the first summary judgment motion, the court examined whether the discovery rule would trigger on the date of observation of defects or date of the expert report on the cause of the observations. Then, in the second summary judgment motion, the court looked at whether a subsequent purchaser is a third-party beneficiary to the contract between an architect and engineer. The court agreed with the engineer’s arguments and granted both summary judgment motions.